It appears that former President Bush has been vindicated. He was not lying about WMD in Iraq, despite accusing howls from his political adversaries for years. But rather than make this public to answer his detractors who were loudly calling him a liar, Bush kept quiet, so terrorists would not be tipped off about the 550 metric tons of concentrated natural uranium "yellowcake" U.S. soldiers found and were guarding in Iraq until clandestine shipments to transfer it to Canada could be completed.
It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq . They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand berms surrounding the site.
Following is an excerpt from a story on MSNBC about secret shipments of hundreds of tons of enriched uranium from Iraq to Canada:
quote:Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq
Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada
updated 6:57 p.m. ET, Sat., July. 5, 2008
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
It also appears now that the information provided by intelligence agencies such as the CIA about WMD in Iraq was not mistaken, after all.
People on every hand, led by a hateful news media, were calling Bush a liar and the CIA incompetent. Bush could have opted to disclose that 550 tons of enriched uranium was found by troops in Iraq. But rather than defend himelf, he chose to put national security interests first. I think Bush deserves to be honored for that, and he is owed an apology by all those who called him a liar. In fact, his refusal even to speak out about this shows he chose not to dignify his adversaries' calumnies with a response.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Um...Bush lied then about looking for them? In all seriousness I need to read more about this before I can form an opinion.
The article specifically says that the yellowcake uranium has to be refined in a centrifuges in order to become effective weapons grade uranium. It also says shipment took 3 months, why has it taken almost 6 years then to get it out of the country? Unless the uranium was dispersed throughout the entire country.
Again those are just my knee jerk responses, I need to learn more.
edit: Also why is the article dated July 5th 2008?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Oooh, so close Ron. So, so close. You will have to wait for another day for the sweet vindication and "I told you so"s.
In the mean time let's just keep our fingers crossed that BHO really is a crazed jihadist looking to destroy America from within. 'Cause if you believe enough crazy theories that have no actual evidence supporting them, well one of 'ems bound to be true, right?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Ron, I am genuinely curious what the world looks like through your eyes.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Bolding mine.
quote:Ron Lambert: Following is an excerpt from a story on MSNBC about secret shipments of hundreds of tons of enriched uranium from Iraq to Canada:
quote:MSNBC: The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.
Would you like to correct yourself?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is why I wish people would read there sources before trying to gloat, its like a self engineered confession.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
What's so funny to me is that Ron himself linked to a truthorfiction.com page on this which not only states The news report went on to say that the yellowcake "had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991." but that same page also links to the DOD Article that states “This was material that was discovered when we initially went in to Tuwaitha,” Whitman said. “It was under the control of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency since that time.”
In other words he actually provided a link that showed he was wrong... that was awfully thoughtful!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
First some of you pooh-poohed the reports that Saddam was actively seeking to purchase Yellowcake (which by definition is an enriched form of natural uranium, and is one big step toward producing nuclear weapons), as if that did not really count. Now you learn that 550 metric tons of Yellowcake was actually in Iraq when U.S. and Coalition forces invaded Iraq, and you are still saying that "doesn't count."
It appears that to some of you the claim that Bush was a liar is gospel you cannot deny without denying your "faith." Why does it seem to cost some people so much to simply be honest? President Bush was WRONGFULLY vilified. He retains his honor. His detractors do not.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Did you miss the part about it being under the control of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency.
In other words, it was just being stored there.
Your argument amounts to "we know there is 550 tons of yellowcake in Iraq because we captured it years ago and have been storing it there under our control ever since.
But anyway on a not-at-all-related note (nod nod, wink wink) we really need to invade Iraq because they have <gasp> 550 tons of yellowcake in the country!!!"
Do you have one of those t-shirts Adam Savage wears on Mythbusters (you know, the "I reject your reality and substitute my own" one)... you should really get yourself one.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Glad to see that Ron's sense of imagination is as vivid and wild as ever. For all we know, he isn't anything he claims he is, probly a 12 year old that has imagined his entire life as an elaborate lie.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If so, he's learned a lot more about spelling in his 12 years than you have in 20.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(It is an odd debate that continues on a topic thats trivially debunked with a simple link to Snopes)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If so, he's learned a lot more about spelling in his 12 years than you have in 20.
Shut up you.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If so, he's learned a lot more about spelling in his 12 years than you have in 20.
And he would have registered for this forum when he was four. A remarkable feat.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It appears that to some of you the claim that Bush was a liar is gospel you cannot deny without denying your "faith." Why does it seem to cost some people so much to simply be honest? President Bush was WRONGFULLY vilified. He retains his honor. His detractors do not.
Out of interest, can you name a single example in your lifetime where you don't obey Republican party line? I've never seen anyone so slavishly dependent on a tribal loyalty.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Strictly speaking, I don't think the Republicans have a party line on either creationism or which day is the Sabbath.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron, can you even admit where you're obviously wrong?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not a question to ask of your average creationist. Or to be more accurate, one that answers itself.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
<sigh>
Okay, how do I put this...?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: First some of you pooh-poohed the reports that Saddam was actively seeking to purchase Yellowcake (which by definition is an enriched form of natural uranium, and is one big step toward producing nuclear weapons), as if that did not really count.
...And which all available evidence that I'm aware of continues to show he never succeeded in acquiring, yes. In particular the documents regarding Iraq's intent to purchase yellowcake from Niger, which were touted in the case for war, were declared by the IAEA to be crude forgeries. Even the intelligence agencies that handled the documents had serious doubts about them.
You are welcome to claim that you have a greater understanding of the matter than both the IAEA and the CIA. You will be patted gently on the head and escorted from the room.
quote: Now you learn that 550 metric tons of Yellowcake was actually in Iraq when U.S. and Coalition forces invaded Iraq, and you are still saying that "doesn't count."
Because it had long since been documented and safeguarded by the U.N. Because the poorly-maintained stockpiles had been around at least since the early nineties. Because it wasn't part of an Iraqi weapons program at the time of the Iraq invasion.
...Because, as far as you're trying to connect it, it doesn't count.
quote:It appears that to some of you the claim that Bush was a liar is gospel you cannot deny without denying your "faith." Why does it seem to cost some people so much to simply be honest? President Bush was WRONGFULLY vilified. He retains his honor. His detractors do not.
I'll simply be honest. You are mistaken. Badly mistaken. Willfully and self-indulgently mistaken. And your attempt to shame people for suggesting that the holder of the highest office in the land be held responsible for his- at best- errors in judgement is woefully misbegotten and ought to be the cause of embarassment.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
.....never mind...(even the very article Ron linked to refutes his claims, specifying that it was ADDITIONAL yellowcake that was the issue, not the stores in question, that was a factor in the war. lol)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously I'm pretty much going to link ron to this thread with the text "You Cannot Discern Reality" every time he starts up again in a political debate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Speaking of discerning political reality, I find it interesting that just_me thinks that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that was in Iraq before the Coalition forces invaded, was somehow already "under our control."
But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Huh? You know some think the Sabbath is on Saturday and not Sunday.
I don't want to kill anyone over their worldview. I just wish some people's limited worldview didn't affect the rest of the world.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
This is the kind of parody post I'd expect KoM to make when ridiculing someone's opinion. In fact it's so over the top I'm really having a hard time believing it's a real post.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Synesthesia, the Sabbath is on Saturday, the seventh day of the week. That is what the fourth commandment explicitly says. Genesis 2:2, 3 says the Sabbath was created at the end of Creation Week, thousands of years before the Jews existed. The fourth commandment says that seventh day of Creation week was the Sabbath, and gives memorializing Creation as the reason for observing the Sabbath (Exodus 20:11). Jesus Christ said "the Sabbath was made for man...." (Mark 2:27)--He did not say the Sabbath was only for the Jews.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Strider, we will see how "over the top" my stated beliefs are when you must answer to the Creator for denying Creation.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure.
Honestly, what really worries me is if you think other people should die for what you believe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: Where is this martyr complex coming from? People may not be agreeing with you but nobody has threatened violence. What has the law of the Sabbath got to do with uranium in Iraq?
And if people are denying the truth of creation it seems most are doing so out of the genuine belief that evolution seems to explain more. I'm sure that if presented with the whole story only the ones who actually hate God will change their minds. Perhaps it is you who will find your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
I don't understand though why you feel that martyrdom is something you should expect.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Also, is this really Ron? Or did someone figure out his password and decide to troll?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: This is the kind of parody post I'd expect KoM to make when ridiculing someone's opinion. In fact it's so over the top I'm really having a hard time believing it's a real post.
Parody? Who needs parody? The thing about Christians is that they fill themselves full of straw just breathing, because their beliefs are so utterly contradicted by actual evidence; then when someone points out that, y'know, X is absurd, any number of 'moderates' will pop up to defend the Christians on the grounds that nobody could believe such a strawman. Would you like some threats of violence with your enabling behaviour?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Synesthesia, the Sabbath is on Saturday, the seventh day of the week. That is what the fourth commandment explicitly says. Genesis 2:2, 3 says the Sabbath was created at the end of Creation Week, thousands of years before the Jews existed. The fourth commandment says that seventh day of Creation week was the Sabbath, and gives memorializing Creation as the reason for observing the Sabbath (Exodus 20:11). Jesus Christ said "the Sabbath was made for man...." (Mark 2:27)--He did not say the Sabbath was only for the Jews.
So you are a SDA? I will not be an SDA again. I used to when I was a kid but it frustrated me too much.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And if people are denying the truth of creation it seems most are doing so out of the genuine belief that evolution seems to explain more.
I'm not sure that this actually is Ron, but I've always been fascinated by people who think atheism is cause for punishment. Any god who provided a sentient mind should welcome doubt, particularly on such crappy evidence. And any god who would PUNISH doubt should be opposed, not worshiped, by every moral human being.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And if people are denying the truth of creation it seems most are doing so out of the genuine belief that evolution seems to explain more.
I'm not sure that this actually is Ron, but I've always been fascinated by people who think atheism is cause for punishment. Any god who provided a sentient mind should welcome doubt, particularly on such crappy evidence. And any god who would PUNISH doubt should be opposed, not worshiped, by every moral human being.
With you on just about everything save the "crappy evidence." But I'd rather not open the can of "what constitutes admissible evidence worms."
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:then when someone points out that, y'know, X is absurd, any number of 'moderates' will pop up to defend the Christians on the grounds that nobody could believe such a strawman. Would you like some threats of violence with your enabling behaviour?
was this directed at me? I think either you misunderstood my post, or i worded it badly. Ron's post seemed so over the top that I thought, like Lalo, someone had to have snatched his password and was posting like that to make fun of him. I was in no way defending Ron, more likely I i was questioning the legitimacy of Ron as an actual person who believes those ideas. And if pointing out that someone's views are so outlandish that I don't believe they're a real person is "enabling behavior" than I don't think I understand the idea of enabling behavior.
I was just using you as an example of a poster that might take someone else's extreme statements and turn them into a parody of themselves. Sorry if I offended.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Speaking of discerning political reality, I find it interesting that just_me thinks that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that was in Iraq before the Coalition forces invaded, was somehow already "under our control."
But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
Why don't you? It'ld make some of us happier not to hear your bs ever again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview.
bluh
what
We're contradicting the obviously factually incorrect premise of your thread, and by keeping up this present course (... adherence to facts?) we shall be driven to murder you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and what did this have to do with the sabbath
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm so confused Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Um, Ron....
You took a very transparent lie, a misrepresentation of the truth, and when others sought to show you the error, you responded by saying that this lie was as accurate as God and the Bible.
Now I know you were thinking that this would make your misinformation seem more truthful, but instead, you seem to be tarnishing the Bible with this connection.
Then you cry that everyone will be punished by God for not believing but you and all believers will be punished by us for your belief. Sounds like God made a world where everyone suffers.
Finally you say that if we don't believe in your interpretation of creation, God will strike us into eternal torment for not believing in God's Creation. I, and many here, believe in God's Creation, but not in the exact interpretation as you do. Sounds like you are getting confused between who is God and who is the mere human.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man, .. what with the three threads I bounced around participating in today, I am nothing if not entertained. But at the same time, I'm profoundly perplexed.
You just don't run across this sort of thing often, the things I've seen argued here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Depends on the circles you run in, really. Now I will admit Ron is a bit further afield than you're likely to see, but if you've got a coworker or a friend who likes to listen to far-right (or far-left, for that matter) radio for example...well, your horizons are broadened in a manner of speaking.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm just mildly bemused as to whether the thread's author actually thinks he's attempting edification or merely a kind of righteous self-congratulation.
In either case, I'm guessing chapter 7 of Matthew wasn't high on the reading list.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I was just using you as an example of a poster that might take someone else's extreme statements and turn them into a parody of themselves. Sorry if I offended.
I took no offense; but I do feel you ought to take the point that people really believe this scheisse. There is no need for parody of Christians; they parody themselves so very effectively, by simple cause and effect: To believe such absurdities requires them to fill their heads with straw. They become, in effect, their own strawmen just by believing as they do.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Synesthesia, you seem a bit defensive. I merely affirmed your statement that some people regard Saturday as the Sabbath.
You might possibly find interesting my just-published book, Genuine New Light from Revelation and Daniel. It is available from the publisher at www.TeachServices.com and also from www.Amazon.com
In my book, I show that some long-standing traditional Adventist interpretations of some Bible prophecies need to be revisited. I show how the seven seals properly apply to recent history in the past century and a half, up to and including the present and near future. I show how the seven trumpets prophecies apply to the very near future, and likewise the prophecies of Daniel 11:40-12:13.
You may be particularly interested in the way I address in the first chapter the way that many Adventists have been allowing traditional, familiar views of some Bible prophecies to prevent advancing in knowledge of "present truth," and of misusing the writings of Ellen G. White, giving them an authority equal to or above that of the Bible, despite their claims that they do not.
What I present is not theological liberalism, but something genuinely new. I remain an SDA church member in good standing. So far my book is selling well.
Please do not allow the spectacle of swine choking on pearls to deter you from further investigation for yourself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, now at least the thread is balanced in a sense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Haha. The only tag associated with the book listed on amazon is "wishful thinking." Other books with that tag: The Secret, Dianetics, and Crossing Over by John Edward. So it's in really good company there.
Honestly, Ron, you and your book sound bat***t. Best of luck.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Depends on the circles you run in, really. Now I will admit Ron is a bit further afield than you're likely to see, but if you've got a coworker or a friend who likes to listen to far-right (or far-left, for that matter) radio for example...well, your horizons are broadened in a manner of speaking.
I've a few. And seriously none of them really act, from time to time, as though they were having a psychotic break.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: You might possibly find interesting my just-published book, Genuine New Light from Revelation and Daniel. It is available from the publisher at www.TeachServices.com and also from www.Amazon.com
Incidentally, to save the board the energy of looking for themselves, Ron's book is self-published through a vanity publishing house, meaning he payed up front to have the book printed and bound (I've checked the website).
Ron, you might not be aware of this, but that company, like many in that business, is likely scamming you out of the money it cost to print your book, and the money your friends and relatives have paid for their copies. Considering that I seriously doubt you paid for a run of more than a few hundred books, I doubt you've made over 500 dollars profit- in fact i doubt you've made any money on the venture at all.
You too, gentle reader, can waste your money on the dream of seeing your name in print.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Orincoro, Teach Services subsidized my book, so I only had to pay half the publishing cost. Their board has to approve of which manuscripts to subsidize. Regular SDA publishers like Pacific Press and Review and Herald only publish a few dozen titles a year, so many SDA authors use Teach Services. They also publish non-SDA authors. I have known others--writers and artists--who published through Teach Services. It is not a scam--sorry if that disappoints you.
I found Teach Services easy to work with. They sent me galley proofs for me to edit, then final proofs for me to give a final approval and minor editing if needed. I was able to communicate with them freely by email, and got prompt responses. They also handle the marketing for me, sending out flyers to various Book and Bible houses (SDA and non-SDA), registering my book with the Library of Congress, etc.
The book was published in January, and I have been told I will receive my first statement and royalty check at the end of this month. They did tell me a month ago that they had only 102 copies left in inventory, so it has been selling well. They said they would print more copies as needed to fill orders.
They are contracted to give me a ten percent royalty. This is standard for religious book publishing. Mainstream typically pays 15%, but religious publishing has traditionally paid a lesser royalty. All authors of religious books know that going in.
I have probably already made back nearly all the money I invested, after only three months on the market. I will know in a week or two.
This is my first book, but I have had several science fiction short stories and a novelet published by Analog, and computer tutorial articles published by Compute! Magazine. I also served as assistant editor for two national circulation trade magazines that serve the heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, and refrigeration industries. Just enter my name "Ronald R. Lambert" (include the quote marks) in your web browser, and it will come up with many of my published credits. I used Yahoo and it came up with most of them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ron, I'm sorry to scar your ego, but you should at least be aware that a serious publisher does not request compensation for publishing a book- this is at least an indication that your book is not good enough to be published, there is not enough demand for such a book, etc. There is a reason why a reputable publishing house will not take it- and although your book was "approved" by this company, the fact that you contributed to its costs indicates that their faith in your product is not strong.
quote: I have probably already made back nearly all the money I invested, after only three months on the market. I will know in a week or two.
Called it. And now that your social circle has bought the book, the publisher will quietly put it out of print to save themselves the bother, and move on to the next guy with a great idea. You ain't the first, and you certainly won't be the last. Try factoring in the amount of time you have spent advertising the book, because a real publisher would do that too. Were there any signings? Any ads? Any release party? Any books in stores? Anything? Tell us, I'm actually quite interested to hear how much time you've invested.
Your book has not been reviewed, it is sold from a website that appears to be just shy of 10 years out of fashion- when will you know that you've arrived?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Orincoro, you are clearly ignorant of the religious book publishing field, yet you still presume to talk authoritatively about it. Are you so totally hateful toward me personally that you just have to find any way you can to discredit me and denounce my work, even if you have to make up virtually everything you say? Why not let other people decide for themselves, instead of setting yourself up as someone qualified to tell others what to think about my book? Obviously you have not read it.
All told, nearly twenty years went into producing my book. It was not the Bible study of a moment. They did ask me if I were willing to attend book signings, and I told them I did not really want to do that. Sounds vaguely idolatrous to me. Why should anyone want my autograph? Why should anyone want anyone's autograph?
And did I not already tell you that Teach Services is doing the marketing? At least you should bother to read everything I said in my last post, before trying to respond to it.
And one more by the way--I have been told by people as far away as Australia and the U.K. that they have ordered copies of my book.
One more FYI: My first science fiction short story was published in Analog in January of 1979. How far back does your knowledge and professional experience in publishing go?
[ April 12, 2009, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, Teach Services subsidized my book, so I only had to pay half the publishing cost.
so, wait, you're bragging/countering about how you had to pay for only half of your vanity publication?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, you are clearly ignorant of the religious book publishing field, yet you still presume to talk authoritatively about it. Are you so totally hateful toward me personally that you just have to find any way you can to discredit me and denounce my work, even if you have to make up virtually everything you say? Why not let other people decide for themselves, instead of setting yourself up as someone qualified to tell others what to think about my book? Obviously you have not read it.
Nor did I say a single thing about it. Way to show your insecurity on that score.
I'm not an authority on vanity publishing, but I am well aware of what it is, and how it works. It's a bit funny your accusing me of trying to establish some sense of false authority. You're the one who wanted to make yourself sound like a published author: "my just published book," and all that. It took me calling BS to find out you're still actually in the hole for the printing costs. Good job- that makes you look smart.
quote: Why should anyone want my autograph?
I don't know... to be able to say that they shook the hand of a legendary ego?
quote: And did I not already tell you that Teach Services is doing the marketing? At least you should bother to read everything I said in my last post, before trying to respond to it.
Oh I read that. And I looked at their website- I would love to know what "marketing" means to them, unless you consider having something show up on Amazon to be marketing. Why no reviews of your book?
quote: And one more by the way--I have been told by people as far away as Australia and the U.K. that they have ordered copies of my book.
Now you've got someone "as far away" as central Europe telling you he won't be buying one- it's the internet in the English speaking world dude, all points are equal.
quote: One more FYI: My first science fiction short story was published in Analog in January of 1979. How far back does your knowledge and professional experience in publishing go?
Well I'm not an old fart like you, but I did read numerous back issues of analog in my esteemed university library. Some of them were good, some of them were bad, but since they published that story a scant 30 years ago, I have to wonder where all those novels you always dreamed of writing have gotten to? You've managed a slim self-published volume about an obscure religious subject (who's abstract, btw, is an invitation to narcolepsy), and that took you twenty years?
I don't know what to say. Devotion? Delusion? Endearing madness? I feel a twinge of sadness that you've had to pull out the big guns, with your analog publication three decades ago- it must hurt.
Link us a copy of your story, why don't you?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Wow, Orinoco. That's incredibly harsh. I know Ron's a bizarre guy, and his book sounds... well, I shan't be reading it. And I'm not necessarily defending him.
But the above seems needlessly hurtful. And yes, I do know that Ron says awful things about liberals all the time, but I'm not sure he knows the difference. I think you know better. I hope so, anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I know the difference- at the moment I'm not really feeling charitable. If no one in his family or social circle ever stopped him and made him look at this, and really examine the silliness and desperation in it, then they have done him a disservice, and that really isn't fair to anyone.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
True. But Ron probably isn't going to pay attention, since as far as he's concerned opinions like ours are just hustling the day of judgement that bit closer. Meanwhile, you’re worrying people like me who are thinking about what words like that might do to a more sensitive personality than he is likely to possess.
So, in the end, what I'm saying is - you don't need to stoop.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: This is the kind of parody post I'd expect KoM to make when ridiculing someone's opinion. In fact it's so over the top I'm really having a hard time believing it's a real post.
Parody? Who needs parody? The thing about Christians is that they fill themselves full of straw just breathing, because their beliefs are so utterly contradicted by actual evidence; then when someone points out that, y'know, X is absurd, any number of 'moderates' will pop up to defend the Christians on the grounds that nobody could believe such a strawman. Would you like some threats of violence with your enabling behaviour?
And this post, filled with poorly thought out ideas and prejudice, is why no one here takes anything you have to say on religion seriously, KOM.
In many ways YOU are as much a caricature as Ron is being here. Talking to EITHER one of you about these issues is a waste of time.
I find it highly entertaining that you are far more like him than you could possibly ever realize or admit.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ron, I would bet seriously that no one is thinking about murdering you. You seem pretty harmless, at least to me, holed up there in your little SDA world, writing your books and stuff. Just about my only squawk with any SDA folks is the excessive focus on being vegetarian, fasting, etc. I think sometimes SDA folks can get a little excessive with the dietary purity. Other than that, you don't seem any more dangerous than the average Rush Limbaugh and/or Michael Savage listener.
As far as WMDs in Iraq go, if there HAD been any, they'd
1. have been found already 2. reported so widely that every human with a TV would have heard about it 1000 times over. That's only a slight exaggeration.
That's kind of a foregone conclusion, dude. No Iraqi has been hiding any uranium or anthrax in his/her lower orifice for the last 6 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think sometimes SDA folks can get a little excessive with the dietary purity.
I'm just going to go over here in this corner and laugh for a little while, kthx. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think sometimes SDA folks can get a little excessive with the dietary purity.
I'm just going to go over here in this corner and laugh for a little while, kthx.
Tom do we really need to do this song and dance with steven again?
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think sometimes SDA folks can get a little excessive with the dietary purity.
I'm just going to go over here in this corner and laugh for a little while, kthx.
I shall join you. We can giggle and look up every once in a while.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
This thread is pretty gross.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I think sometimes SDA folks can get a little excessive with the dietary purity.
Sure, but on the other hand, you're steven. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well I'm not an old fart like you, but I did read numerous back issues of analog in my esteemed university library. Some of them were good, some of them were bad, but since they published that story a scant 30 years ago, I have to wonder where all those novels you always dreamed of writing have gotten to? You've managed a slim self-published volume about an obscure religious subject (who's abstract, btw, is an invitation to narcolepsy), and that took you twenty years?
I don't know what to say. Devotion? Delusion? Endearing madness? I feel a twinge of sadness that you've had to pull out the big guns, with your analog publication three decades ago- it must hurt.
Link us a copy of your story, why don't you?
Hah, you're some evil b*stard, Orincoro.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm like the Penguin of Hatrack. Ynuk ynuk ynuk! You'll never defeat me Bat-freak! Ynuk ynuk ynuk!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bella Bee, I appreciate your sentiment in attempting to reprove Orincoro for his hateful harshness, but I would just as soon that you did not. Since he has chosen to make himself my adversary, I am glad to see him make a fool of himself.
Steven & Tom, SDAs do not require vegetarianism, we only promote it as a desirable ideal to aim for (as do many other health-conscious groups). Only about half of SDAs are vegetarians. This, in fact, is why SDAs were chosen by government researchers as the ideal study group to establish the actual benefits of vegetarianism. Previously, it was suggested that vegetarians only lived longer lives on average because vegetarians would also observe other health-conscious practices, like not smoking. But the 20,000 or more SDAs in southern California they kept track of in the massive government study, made it possible to remove such things as smoking or social class or culture as factors in the study, since half of SDAs are vegetarians, and half eat meat, while none of them smoke (or use alcoholic beverages), and most come from the same church community and are mainly middle class. So when it was found that SDAs who are vegetarians on average live 7 years longer than SDAs who eat meat, this established a clear statistical advantage for vegetarianism in terms of longevity. The same study also found that those SDAs who are vegans (no diary or eggs), on average live 12 years longer.
By the way, Steven, Cain probably did not think he would ever murder his brother Abel, until the time came when God accepted Abel's offering that showed his faith in God, and rejected Cain's selfish offering that demonstrated a spirit of disobedience and lack of faith in God. Then Cain's true spirit was made manifest.
So don't be so sure what you would or would not do, until you have been put to the test. However, it is fair to say that the decisions you make in what seem to be small things now, prepare the way for what you will decide when it is all on the line.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I am glad to see him make a fool of himself.
Orincoro entirely aside, aren't you even aware of the fact that you were proven completely and incredibly wrong in your original presentation in this thread? About how the whole enriched uranium thing you presented was totally false, even according to your own sources? About how you were shown to be completely obstinate towards even being corrected in the face of obvious reality?
Y'all won't make much headway being the biggest fool here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If it makes you feel any better Ron sometimes I get urges to track you down and hunt you like a lion hunts its prey. Speaking of which how tall are you so i know how much ketchup to bring...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If it makes you feel any better Ron sometimes I get urges to track you down and hunt you like a lion hunts its prey. Speaking of which how tall are you so i know how much ketchup to bring...
Please Blayne, threats don't suit you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because, all else aside, we've seen pictures and the mental image is too funny for words.
"I'm really good with a bo staff..."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was being satirical, jeez, I would've thought the reference to cannibalism would've started flashing red lights.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Satire doesn't need threats of murder, Blayne. Those aren't funny, and they're never flattering.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think you'ld find it does very very often, if you havent seen any of this you need to get out more.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, if you think you're being funny in this particular instance, you're gravely mistaken.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In context it was, someone said "Ron, we're not planning on murdering you" the funny responce as per gallows humor or dead baby humor is "Bwha? But I am! All that planning for nuttin'" I decided to tune up the subtlety as probably people would've taken offense to the former.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny in concept. Lacking in execution. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Story of my life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I was being satirical, jeez, I would've thought the reference to cannibalism would've started flashing red lights.
Except when the person already has a martyr complex going. Would you joke with a black man that you were going to lynch him if he didn't shut up?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I neither confirm or deny.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Bella Bee, I appreciate your sentiment in attempting to reprove Orincoro for his hateful harshness, but I would just as soon that you did not. Since he has chosen to make himself my adversary, I am glad to see him make a fool of himself.
:snort: "Adversary"
You really are a tool.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
It's rather like rusty tin cans fancying themselves the age old adversary of BB guns.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Orincoro entirely aside, aren't you even aware of the fact that you were proven completely and incredibly wrong in your original presentation in this thread? About how the whole enriched uranium thing you presented was totally false, even according to your own sources? About how you were shown to be completely obstinate towards even being corrected in the face of obvious reality?
Samprimary, that is simply not true. I refuted the attempts to counter what I presented, you just refuse to acknowledge it. I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq. So this does in fact prove that those who called Bush a liar were wrong and should in all honor admit it, and give Bush the public apology they owe him. All attempts at explaining this away are nonsense. Whether you are mature enough and intellectually honest enough to admit it or not, the debate is over. I proved my case.
And that link I supplied from truthorfiction.com did in fact reinforce the argument I presented in the first link. Some of you read superficially, or did not read the whole thing through, or just totally misconstrued it, when you claimed it contradicted my argument. It is no wonder you knee-jerk carping critics are wrong about virtually everything, when you show you cannot read and evaluate any more carefully than that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It was not this:
"--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons".
Knowing what has been pointed out in this thread, please explain why that yellowcake, which was not useful and was under the control of the UN, justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kmboots, enriching natural uranium so it contains a larger percentage of fissionable isotopes is indeed the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons, or nuclear fuel. FYI, uranium consists mainly of the non-fissionable U-238 isotope. Of the U-235 and U-237 isotopes, the normal concentration found in nature is only about 1%. it takes a concentration of about 5% U-235 to provide a fuel that can sustain a fission reaction. Enriching the uranium consists of removing out enough U-238 with a centrifuge (hard to do because the difference in atomic weights is so slight) so that what you have left can provide a fissionable mass. This is the biggest and hardest step in producing either weapons grade or reactor grade fissionable uranium. Do you understand now?
And I will just point out again, it is utterly stupid, the height of absurdity, to claim that the U.N. controlled these 550 metric tons of enriched uranium in Iraq while the country was still under the control of Saddam Hussein and his 550,000-man army. Also, you forget how many times all the U.N. observers were kicked out of Iraq. Don't you guys have any sense? Do the facts of history so totally escape you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq.
Let's start with the basics, ron: go back through the thread and find what people said in response to your claim that this was enriched uranium.
Not even your own sources are claiming that this was enriched uranium. So, let's hear you at least concede that your usage of the word 'enriched' is wrong.
And, in case you need it, here's that snopes link again. It refutes what you have to say. Do you have anything to say in response to it? Is snopes wrong?
quote:I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq
Related to this, right after we invaded, there was a whole mess of top notch troops and equipment in Iraq. Therefore, Saddam Hussein must have been a great threat. With this sort of equipment that is so advanced that only the U.S. has it and such a large number of highly trained soldiers, he'd be a threat to any country in the world.
Honestly, Ron, how could you neglect these troops when castigating the people who doubted George Bush's veracity? I think you might just lack the honor to bring them up.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Let us make this clear.
Your case is as follows:
1)President Bush said that Iraq was building Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons.
2) When no proof of these WMD's were found, some said "We have been lied to."
3)550 Metric tons of uranium yellowcake were removed from Iraq, with full press coverage.
Hence, President Bush had not lied...
although this Yellowcake was the remnants of their nuclear reactor, destroyed in 1991.
although this was nuclear waste that had not been weaponized, nor were there any facilities found to weaponize it.
although, up until the invasion, this waste was under the eye and protection of international nuclear watchdogs and not touched by anyone in the Iraqi government.
although no other facilities or large amounts of current biological or chemical weapons were found.
although no paperwork discussing plans, costs, shipments, blueprints, or other supporting needs were found in the rooms of paperwork our soldiers combed through for information.
although when President Bush made this speech he referenced sources saying that Hussein was buying, not had bought, yellowcake.
although all the intelligence now supports the fact that the information President Bush was using was a bad forgery.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, Snopes was wrong, and is unreliable. Snopes is controlled by a liberal, pro-Democrat husband-and-wife team with no expertise in investigative reporting, who are notorious for putting liberal propaganda above facts, and affirming anything critical of conservative positions.
Here is what someone who looked into Snopes had to say:
quote: For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it--kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - As a result of snopes.comclaiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political signreferencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are a very Democratic (party) and extremely LIBERAL! I found this to be true during the recent election where anything NEGATIVE about BO was false--A much better source, at least not Biased is "true or fiction". As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
[ April 14, 2009, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
isnt factcheck the rage now?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know if you can rely on wikipedia for an unbiased opinion though. Wikipedia was founded by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Ann Coulter, and a 4 year old cat named Mittens. You've got to read around their Republican and tuna flavored Fancy Feast biases before you can really get at the truth.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On that note:
quote: A chain e-mail that "exposed" Snopes contains falsehoods. And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. A State Farm spokeswoman confirms what they reported about the Obama-baiting agent.
This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They're accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
...
Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, "We apply the same debunking standards to both sides."
...
Although our sites have somewhat different emphases – we focus on what's being said in political ads, speeches, interviews and debates, while Snopes.com concentrates more on such things as whether former Monkee band member Michael Nesmith's mother was the inventor of liquid correction fluid (she was) – Snopes.com does take on some claims in the political realm. That has given us an opportunity to evaluate the Mikkelson's work from time to time. We have found it solid and well-documented. We even link to Snopes.com when it's appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.
But I'm sure that those that reply upon chain emails that cite Wikipedia as their source may be less than convinced.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
EDIT - Mucus beat me to it. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth_Mauve, the documented and proven fact that Saddam was seeking to obtain additional "yellowcake" is completely aside from the fact that he already had 550 metric tons of the stuff. Though the dishonesty of those hypnotized into chanting "Bush is a liar" also extended to trying to dispute this fact as well.
I wonder how many votes in the last presidential election were influenced by people looking up negative information about Barack Obama on Snopes, and having Snopes wrongly claim it was all false?
And of course, Wickipedia is not necessarily free of bias either, though since contribution to it is pretty open, the truth usually can get through, and corrections of false information usually get posted eventually. I don't know what you have against Fancy Feast, MrSquicky--my cats prefer it. And in the case of Wickipedia, it does not matter so much who founded it. As I said, it is fairly open contribution.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Beat me to it as well.
Ron, as Factcheck says pretty much the same thing, want to try again?
Knowing what has been pointed out in this thread, please explain why that yellowcake, which was not useful and was under the control of the UN, justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it--
The "people" in this quote must be particularly dumb, considering Barbara Mikkelson signs every one of her articles. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Whether or not Bush is a liar, I'm not really interested in addressing.
Also, will you admit that you misused the term "enriched" to describe yellowcake?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let's try it this way: Ron, yellowcake is not enriched uranium. True or false?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it--
The "people" in this quote must be particularly dumb, considering Barbara Mikkelson signs every one of her articles.
And you trust that?!?
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: It's rather like rusty tin cans fancying themselves the age old adversary of BB guns.
:giggle:
I don't know who got the worst of that barb. Good on you sir!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And, in case you need it, here's that snopes link again. It refutes what you have to say. Do you have anything to say in response to it? Is snopes wrong?
Dude, I have never known snopes to be wrong about anything. It's one of the most carefully researched popular sites on the web. Seriously- I'm in awe of it for being so forthright.
That said, I'm having a little trouble parsing the part about the uranium being "documented and secured" by the UN in 1991. Now, who exactly has been in control of that uranium during the preceding 15 years, when, and for how long? It's been shown not to be connected with the Plame affair uranium, but who has actually been watching after the stuff all this time, and particularly right before the invasion? Do we know?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq
Related to this, right after we invaded, there was a whole mess of top notch troops and equipment in Iraq. Therefore, Saddam Hussein must have been a great threat. With this sort of equipment that is so advanced that only the U.S. has it and such a large number of highly trained soldiers, he'd be a threat to any country in the world.
Honestly, Ron, how could you neglect these troops when castigating the people who doubted George Bush's veracity? I think you might just lack the honor to bring them up.
That's why we sent them in with as few supplies as possible, and no body armor... DUH!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK Juxtapose, yellowcake is a form of uranium concentrate, which is a needed step toward producing uranium enriched enough to support continued fission reaction. But this is splitting hairs--yellowcake is only obtained as a first step toward producing nuclear weapons or fuel for nuclear reactors.
And that report, where Tenet says his line about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake from Niger should not have been included in the president's speech, was dated 2003. Tenet and intelligence services of other countries did believe Saddam was trying to obtain yellowcake, and aluminum tubes used for processing it. So many sources confirm that Saddam did contact Nigeria about this, it is reasonble to believe he did. It is hard to prove a negative, but it does seem unlikely that Saddam was not seeking to pursue all lines of WMD development, since he said he was, claimed he had them, and had used chemical weapons in the past against the Iranians and the Kurds. He was also trying to obtain missiles from North Korea so he could deliver WMD warheads long range.
It has also been noted that when U.N. inspectors were able to inspect the yellowcake being stored in Iraq after the invasion, it appeared that some of it was missing. Some of the security seals had been broken and some containers broken into. The fear was that some of this material may already have wound up in the hands of terrorists. Let's hope they have all succombed to cancer by now.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Orincoro, perhaps you forget that the ground troops who first entered Iraq had to wear biological hazard equipment, which made the situation especially difficult in the hot environment. All the embedded reporters commented on this--they had to endure the hardship as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It has also been noted that when U.N. inspectors were able to inspect the yellowcake being stored in Iraq after the invasion, it appeared that some of it was missing. Some of the security seals had been broken and some containers broken into. The fear was that some of this material may already have wound up in the hands of terrorists.
And whose fault is that!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So the terrorists would have ahold of yellowcake, which isn't even radioactive enough to make a dirty bomb, and requires significant industrial capacity to refine? If they're going to waste their time with that, good for us.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Note this last paragraph from the source linked by kmboot:
quote:One scientist who used to work at Tuwaitha told the BBC that as well as uranium the site had also has nuclear waste and four sources of highly radioactive material that have now gone missing.
So it appears that some of what was stored at the Tuwaitha site in Iraq was not just yellowcake concentrate, but actual enriched nuclear material. Natural uranium is not "highly radioactive." And natural uranium does not produce "nuclear waste," since it does not have a high enough percentage of fissionable uranium isotopes to sustain a fission reaction. Iraq did at one point have nuclear reactors at some stage of completion, when the Israeli bombers wiped them out. So there was more than yellowcake at Tuwaitha.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and all under the control of the United Nations, and not Saddam. All evidence is that Iraq had no nuclear weapons programs, and it certainly didn't have a nuclear weapons program based on material it didn't even possess. If being in geographic proximity to nuclear material is enough to make someone have a program to create nuclear weaponry, then I guess many of us in the US near military bases are deserving invasion.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:OK Juxtapose, yellowcake is a form of uranium concentrate, which is a needed step toward producing uranium enriched enough to support continued fission reaction.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
quote:But this is splitting hairs--yellowcake is only obtained as a first step toward producing nuclear weapons or fuel for nuclear reactors.
Here's the thing, though. The invasion was sold to the public as necessary to preempt an urgent threat. I don't really consider possession of yellowcake the kind of evidence that compels immediate military action. It certainly would not have resulted in a "mushroom cloud," as we were told.
So when you incorrectly call yellowcake "enriched," your audience could understandably see you as trying to lend false legitimacy to the urgency that preceded the invasion. It's important to the discussion that we act in good faith, and perceive each other to do the same. You using correct terminology, even if it seems nit-picky, aids this discussion.
EDITED for punctuation.
[ April 14, 2009, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, perhaps you forget that the ground troops who first entered Iraq had to wear biological hazard equipment, which made the situation especially difficult in the hot environment. All the embedded reporters commented on this--they had to endure the hardship as well.
What's your point? I'm well aware that it was an ill-conceived idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again,
Knowing what has been pointed out in this thread, please explain why that yellowcake, which was not useful and was under the control of the UN, justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So it appears that some of what was stored at the Tuwaitha site in Iraq was not just yellowcake concentrate, but actual enriched nuclear material. Natural uranium is not "highly radioactive." And natural uranium does not produce "nuclear waste," since it does not have a high enough percentage of fissionable uranium isotopes to sustain a fission reaction. Iraq did at one point have nuclear reactors at some stage of completion, when the Israeli bombers wiped them out. So there was more than yellowcake at Tuwaitha. [/QB]
Can I see your degree in nuclear physics please? Because your logical extrapolations of the information contained in a news article, written by a non-scientist, are not at all credible. Simply Ron, you don't have enough information or experience in this matter to know exactly what that information means. Neither does the reporter- so stop pretending.
To attempt a preemption of your restating the case with no new information- you don't know what "nuclear waste" means. You don't know what the reporter means by "highly radioactive," you don't know what he means by "nuclear waste," you don't know what it takes to create fissionable uranium, and you have no clue, absolutely none, as to how far along Iraq was in that process 20 years or more ago. You don't know these things because the reporter doesn't know- he is reporting, he is not a scientist, and he is not an authority on a scientific topic. He reports facts, and the facts that can be ethically reported are in the article- and in fact, he qualifies this statement (which you are invoking as hard proof) by clarifying that it is HEARSAY- NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT. Your conclusions are outside of the facts, based on information quoted from an article that makes this clear, and so they are highly, terminally unreliable. You simply don't know. Perhaps if you spent some time getting down to your research, bypassing the tertiary and secondary sources to try and find out exactly what was there, and when, you might know something, but even then- the information your talking about may be secret, which means you can imply nothing about it, its consequences, or its meaning.
I really have no problem with you not knowing. I don't know either. But I don't claim these things as if they are true, or even likely true. I don't claim that I know what Iraq had, because I don't know- but for you to act as if the information contained in a few news articles proves or even supports a theory contrary to the repeated conclusions of all the major news agencies, and every investigative reporter that has taken on this subject, makes you look nutty.
To go further and extract far-reaching meaning from the word choices of a lay reporter is irresponsible, and moreover lazy, and not a little foolish. I should say you ought to know better, but I'm not at all confident that anyone has ever taught you anything useful about ethical research or reporting.
[ April 14, 2009, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
This has gone on for three pages?
Much like the stores themselves, which date back to at least 1991, I have to ask... Has anything new come into the picture that demands such intense action?...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Snopes was wrong, and is unreliable. Snopes is controlled by a liberal, pro-Democrat husband-and-wife team with no expertise in investigative reporting, who are notorious for putting liberal propaganda above facts, and affirming anything critical of conservative positions.
So, because you slurped up the BS in a chain email about snopes, you now put yourself against both Snopes and Factcheck.
This gets better by the minute! So, is Factcheck wrong about snopes, Ron? Are neither of them as credible as chain emails with bad citations, in your mind?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
In answer to your question, Sterling: http://xkcd.com/386/ Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Someone should really back this thread up for future reference. Rarely does one see quite so much ... quality)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (Someone should really back this thread up for future reference. Rarely does one see quite so much ... quality)
Done.
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: In answer to your question, Sterling: http://xkcd.com/386/
Yes, I understand the temptation... But how many coats of pink paint does a fence need before it can be categorically described as possessing the quality "pink in color"?
How many links does someone have to post that either do not support or openly contradict their points before one can just accept that whether or not they "get the last word", they've pretty much defined themselves and the quality of their arguments?
This is beginning to feel like turning a firehose on someone who's already beating their head against the wall...
(Other strained metaphors/similies available as required...)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Way ahead of you, dude. I've saved everything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think people just approach Ron the wrong way. Look at him the right way and he's hilarious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe I understand how Trixie feels when I dangle string just out of her reach.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Now I have a mental image of a cat batting at some string and going "gooooodddddddddd snopes is such CRAP"
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ron, I'm sorry to scar your ego, but you should at least be aware that a serious publisher does not request compensation for publishing a book- this is at least an indication that your book is not good enough to be published, there is not enough demand for such a book, etc. There is a reason why a reputable publishing house will not take it- and although your book was "approved" by this company, the fact that you contributed to its costs indicates that their faith in your product is not strong.
quote: I have probably already made back nearly all the money I invested, after only three months on the market. I will know in a week or two.
Called it. And now that your social circle has bought the book, the publisher will quietly put it out of print to save themselves the bother, and move on to the next guy with a great idea. You ain't the first, and you certainly won't be the last. Try factoring in the amount of time you have spent advertising the book, because a real publisher would do that too. Were there any signings? Any ads? Any release party? Any books in stores? Anything? Tell us, I'm actually quite interested to hear how much time you've invested.
Your book has not been reviewed, it is sold from a website that appears to be just shy of 10 years out of fashion- when will you know that you've arrived?
I'm surprised nobody's called you on this yet. You're way over the line. Whatever you think about his political opinions, Ron is consistently polite and courteous. I don't think it's possible to disagree with him more than I do, but we all owe him the same civility he gives us.
Being passionately wrong doesn't make him a bad person. Ron, if you're ever in NY, we'll get beers at a gay bar.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
he'd break out in hives just going near a gay bar.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its perplexing to see someone so fiercely devoted to a particular view that they are willing to defend it to the death even in the faces when mountains of contradictory evidence.
I don't think I've ever seen Ron back down on any claim he's made, No matter how compelling the evidence against him, he will not be compelled to change his mind. I tend to think that if Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and Rice all came out on national TV and confessed saying "There never were any WMDs, we knew it, we lied because we wanted to invade Iraq, kill babies and steal oil" -- Ron would still find a way to dismiss it.
If God himself spoke from heaven and said "Bush is evil liar, there were never any WMD and Bush knew it all along", Ron would still find a way to keep believing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Snopes wasn't totally accurate about the Golden Compass I think.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its perplexing to see someone so fiercely devoted to a particular view that they are willing to defend it to the death even in the faces when mountains of contradictory evidence.
I don't think I've ever seen Ron back down on any claim he's made, No matter how compelling the evidence against him, he will not be compelled to change his mind. I tend to think that if Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and Rice all came out on national TV and confessed saying "There never were any WMDs, we knew it, we lied because we wanted to invade Iraq, kill babies and steal oil" -- Ron would still find a way to dismiss it.
If God himself spoke from heaven and said "Bush is evil liar, there were never any WMD and Bush knew it all along", Ron would still find a way to keep believing.
But he's not exactly alone in that. What is it, a quarter of the country still thinks Bush was a good president? The Republican party tends to attract the delusional -- I've never seen anything like this kind of slavish worship given to the Democrats.
Hell, OSC still spends his days rhapsodizing about Bush and warning about how Obama's going to destroy the world... where Democrats are already criticizing Obama for enacting wiretapping legislation that's worse than Bush. I'm rather happy that Democrats are willing to turn on each other for their principles, but it gives them a hell of a weakness in elections.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I've never seen anything like this kind of slavish worship given to the Democrats.
And I consider myself a Democrat and am cautiously approving of most of what Obama has done so far. But seriously, if you've missed the slavish Democrat love, you're just looking in the wrong places.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I dunno, folks, maybe the thread can speak for itself from this point on. Not sure I see the point of endless dogpiling on Ron.
Not that I have any standing to call for an end to it, or that I've walked the walk before.
But enough is all we need, or something.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And I consider myself a Democrat and am cautiously approving of most of what Obama has done so far. But seriously, if you've missed the slavish Democrat love, you're just looking in the wrong places.
I consider myself an independent who supported Obama in the election and now angrily oppose half of what he's doing. There is some Obama worship, but the reason why that's startling at all is because Democrats don't usually get worshiped.
I can't even mention Pelosi or Reid without sneering. Democratic voters hate their spineless Democratic politicans -- conversely, I've heard nothing but thinly veiled desires to suck on Bush's breasts from Republicans throughout the past eight years.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I've heard nothing but thinly veiled desires to suck on Bush's breasts from Republicans throughout the past eight years."
Do you really believe this stuff? Do you really honestly think that you've only been exposed to bush worship from conservatives, and nothing that might qualify as grudging support, partial approval, or anything else on the spectrum between suckling and outright disapproval?
Because I don't believe it. You have heard other things from Republicans, unless you've been living under a rock that happens to tune in Sean Hannity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I've heard nothing but thinly veiled desires to suck on Bush's breasts from Republicans throughout the past eight years.
Maybe this is true, for you, individually. Maybe for whatever reason this isn't just a creatively blindered observation about republicans and somehow you live in a little pocket of 100% bush support from Republicans. But, I mean, my god, you could just look up statements on this very forum itself from republicans who can't stand bush. Or you could do a little research about how republicans interpret the legacy of Bush.
Here's a hint: Measured by percentage, more russians approve of Stalin's legacy than americans approve of Bush's legacy. Support levels in the low 20's is what we're talking about, here. You have two possibilities: either liberals are over three quarters of all americans (nope) or there's a heaping helping of republicans who gave up the ghost on Bush and have been critical of him and think his administration was not approvable (yup).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: There is some Obama worship, but the reason why that's startling at all is because Democrats don't usually get worshiped.
It's when you say things like this that I remember how young you are.
Before Bill Clinton made such a spectacular idiot of himself, he certainly got a fair bit of worship. And seriously, have you heard of JFK (and for that matter, RFK)? There are definitely other examples, but those are the ones that absolutely leap to mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Clinton was before my time as a politically savvy adult and I only remember him through the lens of a politically disaffected kiddo. I wouldn't even really understand what the deal with Monica was about till years later.
It's actually really hard to try to get a picture of the time, but I pretty much got it all fleshed out back to the 1960's with what is, I hope to be, mostly unbiased information.
And there was certainly a healthy quantity of clinton worship going on.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I voted against Bush in 2000. Later I came to abhor Gore. After 2001, I began to respect Bush better, and could see he was more intelligent than most people had given him credit for being, and in most cases seemed to take the right positions. He was wrong about many things too, such as the way he underestimated the number of troops needed to pacify Iraq after the conquest. But I saw evidence that he was a man of principled convictions--more so at least than his father had showed himself to be. He certainly deserves better treatment than he has gotten from the rabid hyenas who have so fervently called him a deliberate liar in the past few years (mainly Democrats who wanted to get their guy elected).
The mentions of Clinton-worship, or Democrat-worship, have validity. But with Pres. Obama, it goes much further because he is the first African-American to be elected. To some he is a symbol that America has finally gotten past racism; to some he is effectively a Messiah figure who gives them hope of racism finally being overcome as an obstacle in their own lives.
For whatever reason, race is the difference.
I do not care that he is African-American. What I object to is the fact that he was voted for by too many people who seemed to think they were voting for a pop star, rather than making a responsible choice based on careful attention to whether he was really the best qualified candidate to be president. Perhaps they were encouraged to dismiss the massive amount of negative information about him because of things like Snopes wrongly claiming it was all false, and perhaps they were naive enough to take at face value statements by Obama denying the criticisms--which were in fact mostly valid and documented.
The fact is that virtually every political leader in America and in the world, knows that Obama is inexperienced and a political lightweight, with no real respect even in his own party (despite the required lipservice they may give). America would have been no worse off if Pat Paulsen had been elected.
2008 is the year that democracy failed in America, because of the irresponsibility of the electorate.
[ April 15, 2009, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Given the probity that you've consistently demonstrated (even in this very thread) towards George W Bush and other political figures, I think everyone will take your concerns that much more seriously.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree,Ron. I think it failed 4 years before that. However, that doesn't mean it won't get a chance again.
I mean, basically you are saying (correct me if I am wrong, please, I am not trying to put phrases in your mouth, just trying to rephrase to make sure I understand) that you have the right to determine if people have done due diligence in their own research, so they can vote for who they believe is best for our country.
If they don't vote for what YOU consider the "right" reasons, then what? Should they not be allowed to vote? This is hardly the first time that this type of issue has been discussed.....as a matter of fact, it's one of the consistent criticisms of a democracy.
But when it's a democrat saying it, there are cries of elitism and favoritism. When a republican saying it people claim it is a conflict between religious views and government.
Living in a democracy means that sometimes you have to live with the results of the election, even if you think the choice made was the wrong one. It doesn't mean that democracy failed, it just means that most of the people who voted think you are worng.
Welcome to my last 8 years, Ron. Funny how we are still here despite it all. I call that democracy's biggest strength......that we can survive mistakes even with chicken little crying the roof is falling. After all, we've been hearing that for the past 100 years. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, there has been some interesting speculation that Clinton may have undergone somewhat of a personality change after his bypass surgery in 2004, which may have allowed some portion of his brain cells to die--an effect that has been observed in others who have undergone the same operation and have gone several minutes without adequate blood flow to the brain.
What caught my attention on this was the a 2008 article by Dr. John McDougall. Here is an excerpt:
quote:One of the savviest politicians of our generation, known for his wit, charm, and calm under extreme pressure, Bill Clinton appears out of character in the speeches and interviews televised since his bypass surgery September 6, 2004—and his mental deterioration may be accelerating. Remember, this is the president who withstood public impeachment before the entire world for his relationship with Monica Lewinski without once losing control. Now, he is easily angered by hecklers, and makes factual mistakes and racial slurs while aggressively defending his wife’s campaign for presidency. Everyone sees his mental and emotional decline, yet to date, no medical professionals have spoken out about the cause or offered help.
Not a single one—not one bypass surgeon, cardiologist or psychiatrist—has stepped forward in his defense; even though all of them are trained to recognize "post bypass surgery cognitive dysfunction." One of the best-kept secrets in medicine is the brain damage caused during bypass surgery. During my 40 years of medical practice I have never heard a doctor warn a patient before bypass surgery that an expected complication is memory loss. After surgery when the family complains of dad’s fits of anger, I have never heard a doctor admit that personality change is a common consequence of surgery. Yet these well-recognized side effects have been reported in medical journals since 1969. ....
In 2001, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 5 years after bypass surgery 42% of patients showed decline in mental function of approximately 20 percent or more. A study published this year (2008) in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery using MRI testing just after bypass surgery found brain damage in 51% of patients. Three years after their time on the bypass pump, significant permanent reduction in mental capacity was identified in 31% of patients. I am not talking major stroke here; but these patients can't remember names or numbers as they once did, experience sleep disturbances (including nightmares), suffer mood swings, and lose intellectual acuity.
Unfortunately, this does not let him off for his lapses in moral judgment in reqard to his treatment of interns, which came years before his surgery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with Ron that President GW Bush is a man of convictions. The problem was that his convictions about many important things were wrong. He was so blinded by his convictions that he could not see what was real, he stubbornly avoided or dismissed information that was contrary to his convictions. Disaster resulted. I don't think he was lying any more than I think that Ron is lying when he does the same thing.
I don't think that "convictions" are necessarily a good attribute in a leader.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I understand uranium has to be sent through centrifuges (hundreds?) of times before you get good weapon's grade material.
How many pages of hatrack does it take to get meaningful material?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kmbboots, it was lack of strength of his moral convictions that led the first President Bush to fail to send the American armored divisions on to Baghdad after kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait, when he had a perfectly legitimate reason to do so. What his son did basically was rectify his father's mistake.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and the sorts of centrifuges needed are fairly complex to make. Refining uranium requires large industrial capacity and very noticeable activity on a large scale.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, by killing a lot of people? The first President Bush didn't cause sufficient destruction so the second one had to fix it by killing more people?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kmbboots, it was lack of strength of his moral convictions that led the first President Bush to fail to send the American armored divisions on to Baghdad after kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait, when he had a perfectly legitimate reason to do so. What his son did basically was rectify his father's mistake.
Yet in his own book, Bush said that Iraq was a quagmire that would cost many, many American lives and probably would remain in conflict despite those sacrifices. It's a shame that by his OWN admission, Bush Jr. didn't even read that book, isn't it?
That was some pretty interesting info on Clinton, regardless if he is suffering from that condition or not. I agree that it doesn't excuse him from previous choices, though.
He was a good president, but kinda a scumbag as a person. He may or may not have deserved to go though impeachment, but once it began he DID deserve to lose his license to practice law.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kmbboots, perhaps you have forgotten that Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally, and was very brutal and bloody in its treament of the Kuwaities. Furthermore, this was widely regarded as a first step toward Saddam expanding further to gain control of the region--it looked like Saudi Arabia might be next.
I recall in particular one report by a journalist who went along with the troops as the tanks advanced on Saddam's dug-in troops, in the push to free Kuwait. When U.S. army tanks equipped with bulldozer blades were demolishing the Iraqi dug-in positions at breath-taking speed, and the Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves, one American soldier as he took Iraqis into custody was heard to say, "It is OK, you are safe now." As much as anything else, that highlights for me the significant difference between American soldiers and soldiers of other nations, especially in past history.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kmbboots, it was lack of strength of his moral convictions that led the first President Bush to fail to send the American armored divisions on to Baghdad after kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait, when he had a perfectly legitimate reason to do so. What his son did basically was rectify his father's mistake.
What his son did, "basically," is far more complex than that. You're not so stupid Ron, so stop thinking everyone else is.
quote: 008 is the year that democracy failed in America, because of the irresponsibility of the electorate.
Actually, 2000 was the year democracy failed in America- only because it is quite possible that the wrong person was put in office at the end of a flawed election. In 2008, democracy was a success, but you lost. The two things can happen simultaneously- democracy does not depend upon you winning, in order to succeed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kmbboots, perhaps you have forgotten that Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally, and was very brutal and bloody in its treament of the Kuwaities. Furthermore, this was widely regarded as a first step toward Saddam expanding further to gain control of the region--it looked like Saudi Arabia might be next.
I recall in particular one report by a journalist who went along with the troops as the tanks advanced on Saddam's dug-in troops, in the push to free Kuwait. When U.S. army tanks equipped with bulldozer blades were demolishing the Iraqi dug-in positions at breath-taking speed, and the Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves, one American soldier as he took Iraqis into custody was heard to say, "It is OK, you are safe now." As much as anything else, that highlights for me the significant difference between American soldiers and soldiers of other nations, especially in past history.
Perhaps you have forgotten that our original mandate from the UN was to push Saddam out of Kuwait not invade it.
Or perhaps you have forgotten that North Korea invaded South Korea and so we pushed them out as well. MacArthur decided to push the attack and suddenly we found ourselves being shot at by Chinese soldiers (convinced we were going to use North Korea as an invasion point for China. Those soldiers promptly attempted to steamroll us. Through bitter losses we pushed them again behind the border. MacArthur and Truman's differing opinions on what to do next are history.
The doctrine of containment did not magically appear one day Ron, it's based in years of experience that if you're going to fight a defensive war that's good, if you try to turn it into an offensive one that's not necessarily so good.
Maybe back in the days of Bush Sr. we would have had more favorable conditions for our nation building efforts, we'll never know will we? But at least with Bush Sr. we knew exactly what we were getting into, and he went no further than he said he would, even with brand new toys that nobody had really seen in action before.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I recall in particular one report by a journalist who went along with the troops as the tanks advanced on Saddam's dug-in troops, in the push to free Kuwait. When U.S. army tanks equipped with bulldozer blades were demolishing the Iraqi dug-in positions at breath-taking speed, and the Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves, one American soldier as he took Iraqis into custody was heard to say, "It is OK, you are safe now." As much as anything else, that highlights for me the significant difference between American soldiers and soldiers of other nations, especially in past history.
As much as I dislike everything else you say, I loathe you for this- I find you disgusting, and vile for this kind of garbage.
Lets set completely aside the fact that this story is a third hand account of something that might have happened in way somewhat like this one, on one battlefield in one part of Iraq on one day, and is not, for as much as people like you want to make it so, shown to representative of ANYTHING. Lets set that completely aside.
Our country used a nuclear weapon on Japan in 1945. We dropped a bomb on tens of thousands of civilians, and killed them, and maimed many more. We destroyed two cities. I think it was unavoidable, and saved Japan from something that may have been worse. But we did that. We did what we had to do, in a war, to save ourselves. In Iraq, we bombed and killed civilians in their homes, in a fight against a government many of them despised. We murdered them- and you can say it was for the good, and perhaps it is. It still bloody happened.
So don't for a second get all high and mighty and talk about the wonder and majesty of the American spirit in wars where we have made the choice to murder innocent people for a cause they didn't believe in, and were never a part of a day in their lives. It's disgusting.
Be realistic about what a war is- if we take on ourselves to do something, we can't write off the deaths Sadaam would have hypothetically caused if we hadn't done what we did. He never got a chance to do those things, so what he would have done didn't happen. What we did happened, and we should be aware of, and responsible for that fact. The causalty count of a war is not a bank ledger that needs to balance out the number of would-have-been killed versus the number that was killed. Killing is killing, and if we find ourselves killing people, then we are judged by history for those decisions- we are not in a position to judge ourselves.
I thought you were a Christian. How does that fit in with war-mongering?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kmbboots, perhaps you have forgotten that Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally, and was very brutal and bloody in its treament of the Kuwaities. Furthermore, this was widely regarded as a first step toward Saddam expanding further to gain control of the region--it looked like Saudi Arabia might be next.
And perhaps you have forgotten or are stubbornly refusing to know that Saddam Hussein was our creature before he invaded Kuwait and likely could have remained so with competent diplomacy.
And why do you think that our soldiers are, by nature, better than say, Canadian or British or French soldiers? Being American is not, in itself, a sign or cause of virtue. See: Abu Ghraib.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This thread is getting very personal. Ron isn't making a whole lot of sense, but you guys need to back off from the personal attacks. You're not going to change who he is, or anything else really, by insulting him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No kidding.
quote:As much as I dislike everything else you say, I loathe you for this- I find you disgusting, and vile for this kind of garbage.
100% uncalled for, and that's coming from me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah. I'm mostly lurking at the moment, but I'll pop back in to say that I'm pretty disappointed by the level of discourse here lately. Comments like that are utterly beyond the pale, but are, unfortunately, becoming more and more common here.
[Edited because the original post was an incomplete thought]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: As much as I dislike everything else you say, I loathe you for this- I find you disgusting, and vile for this kind of garbage.
I had no idea that ron had such reins on your emotions!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
In fairness, I don't know that there should be such a huge distinction made between
"I find you disgusting and[/because] I find what you say vile"
and
"People who ascribe to belief 'x' are dishonorable and deranged. Oh, you ascribe to belief 'x'? Tee-hee."
That the latter is considered somehow more polite is kind of a sham.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
god this thread is going to get locked now, isn't it. isn't it. we can't have nice things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This thread was never all that nice.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Hitler.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Hitler.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)